I do not believe in man made climate change. Of course the weather will change but it varies within a standard deviation. Where were all of the hurricanes this year? Any scientist knows that;

#1 you can not extrapolate from only a few data points#2 you can make numbers say just about anything that you want#3 you data is only as precise as your intrumentation.

Considering that the definition of climate is long term weather patterns, and that the modern thermomter was not invented until the mid 18th century I have little faith in climactic data originating before the 1940's.

You have to decide, are you going to talk about climate. Or are you going to talk about Al Gore?

If the climate is actually undergoing significant changes, that would be true whether or not anyone named Al Gore ever existed.

The people who tried to turn the debate about Climate Change into a debate about Al Gore were completely aware of what they were doing, of course.

I’m not sure I understand your logic. AL Gore wins the Noble prize for feeding the public information about global warming that even the scientists that believe in global warning call extremely exaggerated. He is a primary partner in a carbon credit company that, according to financial analysts pockets about 85 cents on every dollar they receive. That leaves 15 cents for investment in renewable energy. He has profited to the tune of $100 million dollars since 2001 from the cause. How is climate change and Al Gore unrelated?

You have to decide, are you going to talk about climate. Or are you going to talk about Al Gore?

If the climate is actually undergoing significant changes, that would be true whether or not anyone named Al Gore ever existed.

The people who tried to turn the debate about Climate Change into a debate about Al Gore were completely aware of what they were doing, of course.

I’m not sure I understand your logic. AL Gore wins the Noble prize for feeding the public information about global warming that even the scientists that believe in global warning call extremely exaggerated. He is a primary partner in a carbon credit company that, according to financial analysts pockets about 85 cents on every dollar they receive. That leaves 15 cents for investment in renewable energy. He has profited to the tune of $100 million dollars since 2001 from the cause. How is climate change and Al Gore unrelated?

OK, so let's agree that Al Gore is a dunce and a bad guy. That get's THAT out of the way.

Now, what are we going to do about Climate Change? If the climate really does change in the way many climatologists are predicting, the trout populations here in PA are going to take a big hit. Warmer water temps would mean shrinkage of the "trout zone" in our stream systems. Brook trout's range would shrink even further up into the headwaters. And their range has already shrunk greatly from their original range.

Troutbert,I mean this in the best way possible....you scare me. Lets say that you are right about global warming. Say that we adopt all of the Koyoto protocols. Think about what that would do to this country. Then think, REALLY think, what this country means to the rest of the world. Then also contrast that with the fact that the real polluters such as China, India and Russia are not held to the same regulatory level as we would be. The earth is a closed system. If we completely eliminate our emmissions and they are allowed to continue on their current trajectory net emissions will still rise.

Yes we consume more energy than another country in the world (though China will pass us soon) but we produce more goods, foods and services. And I was 100% serious when I said that we are perhaps the most environmentally responsible country in the world. Look these terms up and get back to me; RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, NPDES, and EIS.

OK, so let's agree that Al Gore is a dunce and a bad guy. That gut’s THAT out of the way.

Now, what are we going to do about Climate Change? If the climate really does change in the way many climatologists are predicting, the trout populations here in PA are going to take a big hit. Warmer water temps would mean shrinkage of the "trout zone" in our stream systems. Brook trout's range would shrink even further up into the headwaters. And their range has already shrunk greatly from their original range.[/quote]Quoted from Troutbert, the quote box got lost when I edited the qoute down.

I have a technical background and have put a lot of time investigating various aspects of global warming. I also happen top have a brother who is a PhD in fluid dynamics and a reasonably respected expert in the field. In my opinion the earth is warming by natural causes. I believe we are experiencing a cycle of increased solar energy output. This theory is subscribed by a number of top astronomers and astrophysisists..

I have studied reviews of pro global warming scientists and see a number of flaws in the modeling.

1. Solar energy inputs are generally kept as a constant.2. The largest portion of the warming mechanism comes from water vapor. We probably have at least 20% - 30% error in our modeling of water vapor. This dwarfs any CO2 component.3. The models rely on positive feedback for CO2 contribution. They do not explain what limits the positive gain and keeps it from becoming runaway such as happens on Venus.

For those that believe in man made contribution to climate change I ask these questions:

1. During the Medieval warming period the Vikings had farms on Greenland. What caused the glaciers that formed over this area that we know today? We also know that prior to the first century AD these areas had glaciers. Why did they melt to allow the Viking communities?

2. As glaciers in the Swiss Alps recede Roman villages and mines are being discovered. These date to the first century AD. Why did they ice over?

Again, I do not believe man is the cause of climate change...but to say we do not contribute to it would be naive. None of the things we are asking the world to do are new. Pollution control, conservation of fossil fuels, new and renewable energy sources have been discussed as positives for decades. What some don't like is that there is actually pressure now to act upon some of those previous suggestions...

If the earth is indeed warming by natural causes the brook trout will simply be exposed to changes they have already endured in past thermal cycles. Their range expanded and contracted with the cycles. They will endure. The earth is never a constant. It just appears that way to our small period of time we are granted to experience it.

If the earth is indeed experiencing global warming caused by mans CO2 emissions then the brook trout could be in trouble. One could argue that the thermal changes are happening too quickly for the species to adjust. If you review the model results from proponents of manmade global warming it is too late to have any significant effect this century. If we instituted the most severe measures it only cuts back the temperature change by a degree or so by the end of the century.

The brook trout’s fate for our and our children’s lifetime is sealed, either way.

This is not to say that if man made global warming was fact that we should not make efforts to resolve the problem. The most effective solutions that engineers and scientists propose would not be those being presented by the current set of politicians.

I agree with you Tom on the conservation side. We do need to conserve and develop renewable energy sources. It is the right thing to do. Furthermore our technology is to a point where we can do that.

I personally think that we are on the cusp of some emmergent technology that will change all of this. Look at the internal combustion engine. Within a decade of its invention the industrial revolution was in full swing. We need that next great leap of innovation.

My problem with the enviro-movement now is that it is dumbed down too much. I understand that you can not present research findings to Joe Six-pack but through dumbing it down so much you are turning hypothesis and theory into dogma and political platforms.

That is not the place for science. It opens doors that should not be opened. You get what we have now. A politician who wraps himself in science to get POLICY changes that he wants. If you question his policy you are labeled as "anti-green". If you question his science you are labeled as ignorant. Who are you to second guess all of these scientists?

Well I am a scientist, and have worked on farms....I know horse crap when I see it.

Well, you are right in one way..the actual science has been dumbed down. But to the point that it is perceived as junk science...hell, I can make gravity should like junk if dilute it enough to try to make someone (who will never understand it ) understand it. Some people just like the earth flat...especially if it has a detrimental effect on their portfolio.

tomgamber wrote:Well, you are right in one way..the actual science has been dumbed down. But to the point that it is perceived as junk science...hell, I can make gravity should like junk if dilute it enough to try to make someone (who will never understand it ) understand it. Some people just like the earth flat...especially if it has a detrimental effect on their portfolio.

National energy and environmental policy is not based on science, it is based on special interests and a sales job to the public for votes. This is true from both sides of the isle.

I disagree with the prior statement. Science informs and provides justification and also rationalization for the policy views. Some people and politicians arrive at their policy views based upon their perception of the import of the science they find credible. Thus, science influences the policy, even though there are other influences as well, including misinformation, economic concerns, etc.

Posted on: 2007/12/27 10:29

_________________
"... the salivary glands produce an estimated three liters of saliva per day."-- Pavlov

JackM wrote:I disagree with the prior statement. Science informs and provides justification and also rationalization for the policy views. Some people and politicians arrive at their policy views based upon their perception of the import of the science they find credible. Thus, science influences the policy, even though there are other influences as well, including misinformation, economic concerns, etc.

Ideally I would agree. Unfortunately that has not been my experience. Which has been reinforced by a number of experiences of trusted friends and colleagues.